Which is the True Church, Part 1 · Chapter 2
CHAP. II. Of their sense of the Word HERESIE.
W. J. HERESIE is an obstinate intellectual opposition against Divine Authority revealed, when it is sufficiently propounded.
R. B. Q. 1. Is the obstinacy that maketh Heresie, in the Intellect or the will? W. J. In the Will, by an imperate act restraining the understanding to that.
R. B. Still your descriptions signifie just nothing; you describe it to be an Intellectual Obstinate opposition, and now say that it is in the will.
He replieth, that the error is in the Understanding, but the obstinacy in the Will.
Ans. Indeed the obstinacy is in both, but radically in the Will; but did Intellectual opposition notifie this?
R. B. And you contradict your self by saying that it is an imperate act. For no imperate act is in the will, but of or from the Will. The imperant act is in the Will; but the imperate (as Intelligere) in the commanded faculty.
To this he replieth, That 1. he meant not the act was in the Will, though he said it was an act of the Will. 2. That all Philosophers are against me, and say that the Will may command Charity and other acts in it self.
Ans. 1. Who could conjecture that by an act of the Will, you meant not an act in the Will, but from it? 2. It's true that Volo velle is a proper speech, and one act of the Will may be the object of another; and a good man willeth nothing more here than to will better; and if you will call this commanding, I will not contend about the word: But certainly all these Volitions are such acts as they call elicite, which they usually distinguish from imperate; and thus you confound them. Otherwise every act of the will which is willed by a former act should be called imperate, and so none but the first should be elicite? And who knoweth when that first act was in being, seeing the will doth still will its own future action?
R. B. 2. I hence noted, that if wilful obstinacy be essential to Heresie, their Church cannot Sect. 2.know a Heretick (while they burn them): For they know not the heart; and many that they burn, would take their oaths that they are not willing to err: He answereth,
W. J. We enter not into mens hearts, that we leave to God: only the Church presumes such to be Hereticks as have Catholick truths sufficiently propounded to them, and yet contradict and oppose them; let such be ready to swear what they will.
R. B. 1. Note here that they burn men for Hereticks, and yet profess that Heresie is an obstinacy of the will, which they know not, but leave to God; and only presume that men are Hereticks though they know it not. And so a presuming Clergy are masters of the Crowns of Kings, and the lives of all men. How excellently would this power have fitted the turn of Abab and Iezebel, and the murderers of Christ? they need not have got false witness to condemn them as Blasphemers: A presuming Clergy might have served: For the very act which the Papists judg men for, is internal in the intellect and will, as Blasphemie is external. To condemn men for Blasphemy hath some reason of justice, because it may be proved; but Intellectual obstinate opposition cannot.
2. He tells us now that Heresie is a contradicting Catholick Truths, but never tells what those Catholick Truths are; Whether any one, or only some of the greater sort: and how we may know them. But it is sufficient that the presumers know. It is a Catholick Truth with them for which Bellarmine citeth many Councils, *See them answered by Ioh. Rossens. (Bishop Bucke…idge.)That the Pope may excommunicate and depose Kings and Rulers: To oppose this now is Heresie: A Heretick must be burnt! O happy Kings that have such a King over them, and such a presuming Clergy!
3. But this Catholick Truth must be sufficiently proposed: That sufficiently is a doubtful dangerous Sect. 3.word: who would think how much lieth on Grammatical learning! The Pope and his Clergy are Masters of Kingdoms, and all mens estates and lives, by being the only judges of the meaning of this one word, SUFFICIENTLY; either it is called sufficiently proposed, with respect to the proposer, (as a Law is sufficiently promulgate) when he hath done as much as he was bound to do: And then a lazie or a proud Priest will think that two words is sufficient to oblige mankind to renounce all their senses (e. g. for Transubstantiation.) And one that hath a Parish ten times greater than he can speak to, will think that he hath done his duty to all, when he hath spoken to as many as he could: yea indeed the Decree of a General Council Printed goeth for sufficient proposal to millions that cannot read, nor ever heard those Councils read. Or else it is called Sufficient with respect to the effect on the understanding of the hearer sufficient to convince him; and it is supposed that it is not effectual: and what mortal man is able to judg of the sufficiency of proposal, respectively to all mens understandings? some men have great natural dullness and slowness of conception, next to Ideots; some by long disuse of such cogitations, hear all spiritual Doctrine as if it were spoken in an unknown tongue; some cannot easily see the connexion of verities: And some of weak heads or memories cannot endure to think long enough of such matters, as to overcome the difficulties: And some think that they perceive such clear evidence for the contrary opinion, that it is not in their power to take it to be false. There is as great variety of receptive capacities, as there is of persons in the world. And the Priest knoweth not the internal case of another man: And therefore is here no sitter a judg of sufficiency to all other, than he is of their thoughts: They are like a man that had a writing in a Table-book to obliterate, and another to write in it in the dark, and would so judg that it was sufficiently done.
And what is Sufficiency? they will say, that which maketh conviction possible; and so poor men that might but possibly have been convinced, must be burnt because it is not done.
Is not this a notable way to save Parish-priests much labour? If they have told thousands the truth once or so oft as might possibly have convinced them: burn them then to save him the labour of any longer preaching to them; but who then shall pay him his Tythes? There is remedy in that case, most, rather than be burned, will say what the Priest bids them, whether they understand him, or believe him or not, and then they are safe.
But they will say perhaps, That that proposal is sufficient to convince men which were sufficient if they were not possessed with a blind zeal for their opinions, (for that's it that W. I. here lays it on.
Ans. But is there any man that hath no error? and must a man have no zeal for that which he judgeth truth: The sense of this is, that Proposal is sufficient to cure a man, which supposeth him to have no disease: If his mind and will have no sin in them to resist the truth, but a pure receptivity of any revealed truth, as Christ in his childhood, and Adam in innocency, then this proposal is sufficient; But if he be not as white paper that hath nothing to be obliterated, but have any sinful opinion to resist the truth, than burn him for an Heretick: And are not the Papists merciful men that will burn none but sinners?
4. But, Reader, if this definition of Heresie be not recanted, the number of Hereticks is very great. For by this all the Heathens and Infidels, Iews and Mahometans in the world are Hereticks, that believe not when the Gospel is sufficiently proposed to them. For here is no distinction nor exception: surely that Christ is the Son of God is a Catholick truth; and so obstinate intellectual opposition to it is Heresie: But the old Doctors never said so, nor do the Papists ordinarily say so: nor do they burn all Infidels that will not turn Christians: whether it be because such are unwilling to be burned, and ten men can scarce burn ten thousand against their wills, I know not.
But I suppose W. I. forgot here to put Baptized persons into his definition. And if he had, if all the Ianizaries be but baptized before the Turks take them from their parents, then they are Hereticks, and to be burnt it seems, or else not.
But perhaps Apostates also should have been excepted. But there is no end of conjecturing at unexpressed meanings, or of amending other mens words.
R. B. Q. 2. Must it needs be the formal object of faith? Is he no Nere…ick that denieth the matter revealed, without opposing obstinately the authority revealing? (For he defined it to be an Sect. 4.opposition to Divine auth…ity.
W. J. Yes: nor is he a formal, but only a material heretick, who opposeth a revealed truth, which is not sufficiently propounded to him to be a Divine revelation.
R. B. To this I answer, 1. His definition and his answer here are contradictory. 2. His addition solveth it not; sufficient propounding it to be a Divine revelation, doth not infer that he taketh God for a lyar, but only that he culpably denieth this to be the Word of God.
I answered therefore, That all men that believe a God, believe him to be true, and no lyar; and so W. I. maketh none but Atheists to be Hereticks. To this he answereth:
W. J. There is a twofold denying of God, one formal and direct, the other virtual and indirect: Atheists are guilty of the first, Hereticks of the second.—This I oblige my self to prove,—Whosoever obstinately contradicts any truth revealed from God, as all Hereticks do some or other of them, they sinfully and wilfully affirm that what God hath revealed is not true, and consequently that God is a lyar, and by that destroy as much as in them lieth the very essence of God.
R. B. Here is little but novelty and deceit. 1. It is deceit to call that a denying of God, in a controversie of such moment (whatever you might do rhetorically in an Oration) which you confess your self is not a denying him: For you say that it is not a formal but a virtual denying him; and that is truly no actual denying him; for forma dat nomen & esse, Boys will deride you if you deny this.
If you object Paul's words, Tit. 1. They confess him in words, but in their works they deny him, I answer, that they denied him formally by their works. For those works signified that their minds did not formally believe God to be God indeed, according to his Essentialities.
2. It is novelty and deceit to affirm (and stoutly undertake to prove) that the denying of one of the Propositions from which the Conclusion must arise, is virtually a denying of both. e. g. Whatever is Gods word is true; but the story of Bell and the Dragon, and of the Angel in Tobit, saying he was the Son of Ananias of the Tribe of Naphthali; and that the intrals of a Fish would drive away all Devils, that they should never return, &c. are the word of God. May not a man firmly believe the Major, that taketh the Minor for a lie? And suppose that the Roman Church say that I am obstinate: my reasons are, 1. Angels be not born of man. 2. Christ saith, This kind goeth not out but by fasting and prayer, &c. so that I must take Christ for a lyar, if I take not Tobit to be false: may not I be obstinate in this, and yet not deny that all the Word of God is true. If the Manichees tell me that the Gospel of Nicodemus, and of Saint Thomas is the word of God, and the Papists, that the Apostolical Canons and Constitutions, and the Itinerary of Peter, were written by Clemens, is obstinate unbelief of this, a denying that God is true. Your sufficient proposal is that of your Church. A General Council is your highest proposer (with the Pope). I find that the Council at Constance, and Basil, and Pisa, say one thing and that at Lateran and Florence say the contrary; and I obstinately refuse to believe them both, may I not yet firmly believe that God is true? you are not God; And verily I have more reason to suspect you than God. The Country-man that never read Councils, nor travelled to Rome, knoweth nothing of your matters, but by his Parish-priest. If he know this Priest to be a common whoremonger and lyar, may he not suspect him without denying God?
But if you can prove what you undertake, it is the sadder with you, that can triumph in sentencing your selves as Hereticks to Hell. e. g. Whatever is Gods word is true, but it is Gods word that the Lords Supper should be administred in both kinds (bread and wine) (This do in remembrance of me), and that it is bread after the consecration, 1 Cor. 11. and that it is better to pray in a known tongue than in an unknown, 1 Cor. 14. and that they know not what manner of spirit they are of, who would have the resisters of Christs Apostles, and of Christ himself consumed with fire; and that the Clergy must not Lord it over Gods heritage, but as servants to all, rule them willingly, and not by constraint, &c. Ergo, this is all true.
And whoever denieth this truth of God, indirectly denieth Gods essence, and maketh him a lyar: But the Church of Rome denieth all these: Doth it follow that the Church of Rome are Hereticks, blasphemers and lyars? And all this is sufficiently revealed, for it is plainly written in the Word of God.
3. Note Reader, that such a contradiction of any truth revealed by God, doth make a man an Heretick; O then what abundance of Hereticks be in the world? What one man can say, that he doth not contradict some truth revealed by God, by nature or Scripture, or both? Every mans mind and will is depraved, and being so, hath some degree of obstinacy in resisting some truth of God; and so all men in the world (as well as the obstinately erroneous Papists) are Hereticks. Not only Papists that will believe neither the Scripture, Tradition. Reason, nor all mens senses, that there is bread after Consecrations; but any one that doth not believe who was the Father of Arphaxad, e. g. or any point of Genealogy, or of Chronology, or differing Numbers in Kings and Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Mat. 1. and Luk. 3, &c. Or that doth not believe that every word in Iudith, Tobit, &c. are Gods word, are all Hereticks and deniers of Gods Essence.
Nor doth he except any age of persons; so that if a School-boy should but obstinately deny to believe his Master about a tradition, or a Scripture-name or number, he were a Heretick.
The Council of Basil revealeth the sinless conception of the Virgin Mary, and yet the Papists that deny it are not accounted Hereticks: And what shew is there of this consequence, the Council of Ephesus 2. of Arminum, of Lateran, of Nice 2, of Florence, of Constance, Basil, Trent, may lie: Ergo, God is a lyar. Hereticks should be softer in defining Heresie.
I next instanced, What if a man deny that there is a Heaven, Hell, Resurrection, and also the Sect. 5.revelation of these, and yet deny not the veracity of God (no nor of the Church) is this no Heretick?
He answereth, No, if not sufficiently propounded to him as revealed from God.—But that Proposition must be made by the Church; and as long as he believeth the infallible veracity of the Church propounding, he cannot disbelieve what it propoundeth sufficiently, &c.
R. B. 1. But a man that doth not believe the Infallibility of the Church, may believe Gods Veracity, and yet be an Heretick.
2. A Papist that holdeth your Church infallible, may disbelieve what General Councils deliver as de fide, for so you do. So that this word Sufficient is as unintelligible among your selves, as meer non-sense: For even General Councils proposals are not accounted sufficient when you are against them, and yet every Priest is, when your turn requireth it.
3. And many a man may take the Churches proposal to be certain, and yet think that the Roman Church is but an erroneous faction, and scarce a (corrupt) third part of the Church.
I next told him that the Jesuit Turnbull against Rob. Baronius, maintaineth that Revelation Sect. 6.is no part of the formal object of faith, and therefore to deny it, is not to deny the formal object. 2. And that forma dat nomen, and he is no Heretick that is none formally.
To the latter he giveth no answer; and to the first as bad as none, viz. that the Heretick denieth also the material object (and what's that to the case in hand?) and that which he is obliged by sufficient reason to believe to be revealed of God; and therefore virtually denieth God to be true.
Ans. But I again reply, 1. Virtual is not actual. 2. It is no virtual denial that God is true, but only that the proposer is true. To be obliged to believe a thing to be Gods word, only proveth that I break that obligation if I believe it not to be his word; but not at all that I believe God to be a lyar, whose word I believe it not to be. Again, this maketh all Christians to be Hereticks, past dispute: For all Christians receive not something or other (small or great) which they were obliged to belie…e to be Gods word. Do you err in any thing that is revealed by Scripture or Tradition, or not? If you say no, and so that your understanding hath no sin, you deceive your self, and the truth is not in you: If yea, then were you not obliged to believe the contrary to be Gods word; if not obliged, then your error is no sin: so that you make every sinful error to be Heresie, and proudly deny that you have any sinful error, lest you should be a Heretick.
I added, that their Church is constituted of men that sinfully neglect some point of truth or other sufficiently proposed: Ergo is it constituted of Hereticks.Sect. 7.
To this he answers, That whatever their neglect be to know what is propounded, yet so long as they believe explicitely what is necessary to be so believed necessitate medii, and implicitely the rest, they can be no Hereitcks: for it is not the ignorance though culpable, but contradiction to what is known So all that take not every Priest for a lawful superior, & to contradict him, though about a word, must be burned & damned.to them to be propounded by those that have power to oblige them as being their lawful superiors, which makes an heretick.
R. B. 1. But still you agree not, nor tell us what is explicitely to be believed necessarily. 2. By this we are all absolved from heresie; for we believe all explicitely that is necssary necessitate medii, and all the rest implicitely by a double implicite faith; 1. In God and our Redeemer. 2. In the inspired Apostles and Prophets; we believe all to be true which God hath revealed, and which his Apostles have delivered as Gods word. 3. Yea, and all that we know to be propounded by any obliging superiors; for we know not the Pope, nor your contradictory Councils to be such.
My next Qu. 2. was, What mean you by sufficient proposal?Sect. 8.
W. I. Such as is sufficient among men in humanis, to oblige one to take notice, that a King hath exacted such and such Laws, &c. that is, a publick testimony that such things are revealed by the infallible authority of those who are the highest tribunal of Gods Church, or by notorious and universal tr…dition.
R. B. 1. Here the Reader may see, that he taketh sufficiency respectively to the Promulgator, viz. as much as he was obliged to do: for a King is not bound to publish his Laws in every parish, or county, but only to make such a publication of them in the chief places of his kingdom, as that men may take notice of them. Kings send not Schoolmasters to teach every man how to prove that his Laws are not counterfeit, and what they are, and what is the meaning of them. For the enacting of them being a late matter of fact, and easily notified, as near unto them, and no other knowledg or belief of them being required but such as is necessary to that part of the obedience of them which belongeth to every man in his place, this is not necessary. And if such a publication of Gods Laws be sufficient, millions that never heard a word of the Bible, or what Christ is, have such a sufficient publication: for the Gospel is published in many parts of the world, and perhaps in many places of the Kingdoms where they dwell, though they never heard it.
2. But when men have the publick testimony that such statutes are made, and such a Book sent from God, this doth not acquaint men what those Statutesor that Book contains: sothat by this rule it should be sufficient to know that God made the Bible, without knowing what is in it; or else he that is but told that there is such a book, is bound by that much to know all that is in it.
3. But note the Popish difficulty of faith; W. I. tells us (after the rest) that we must know these things revealed by the infallible authority of those who are the highest tribunal of Gods Church, &c. And is it possible for one that knoweth nothing of Christ or the Scripture, or that Christ hath a Church, to know yet, 1. That he hath a Church. 2. And that he hath authorized some men to be the highest Tribunal to judg that Church through all the world. And 3. That he hath particularly authorized them to judg which is and is not his revelation. 4. And to know who be the men that are this highest Tribunal to all the world, viz. for those of Abassia, that had not so much History as to tell them that there was such a City as Rome, or such a man as the Pope in the world, till Oviedo was sent (who told it but to few), could yet know that this Pope and his Council are their Judges, and from them they must receive the Gospel. 5. And to know that this Universal Tribunal is infallible, before they believe in Christ himself, who is supposed to give them their Infallibility? Alas! must every poor Infidel know all this, before he can believe in Christ, when we that live among them, and read their laws and doctrines, cannot easily believe the Infallibility of those Popes, who by General Councils are charged not only with Murder, Adultery, Simony, Perjury, &c. but with Heresie also, or Infidelity? Nor the Infallibility of those General Councils, who are accused by Popes and by other Councils of Error, Heresie or Schism?
4. But he addeth another way, Or by notorious and universal Tradition. And 1. If this will Sect. 9.serve, then I hope we may have true faith that believe no humane infallible Tribunal over all the world, much less that the Pope and his Council are such a Tribunal; for we have notorious Universal Tradition, delivering us all our Religion.
2. But yet these are hard terms for every poor Heathen to come to Christ by: Alas, how shall the millions of people through the world, who know nothing that is many days journey from their houses, know what is the notorious Tradition of all the Christian world? I that search after it in all the books that I can get, can scarce give a good account of the Tradition of much of the greater part of Christians. Nay no Universal Tradition at all is notorious to most Christians, much less to all the Heathens and Infidels on earth. It is not notorious to most in England, what is the Tradition of the Abassians, Syrians, Armenians, Greeks, no nor of the Italians, French, Spaniards, Germans, &c. That is notorious to Scholars, which is not so to the unlearned; and to Antiquaries, which is not so to other Scholars.
Here W. I. answereth two things, 1. That to know some Laws of the Commonwealth, is of importance Sect. 10.to salvation. 2. That God should have made a visible Government imprudently, whose Governors could not be known but by revelation.
R. B. 1. And how comes importing to be put instead of necessity to salvation? This is but fraud.
2. It were worth our diligent enquiry, could we prevail with these men to open to us this mystery, How it is that the Pope and his Council may be known to be the supreme Governors of the world, without revelation? I will abate my Antagonists the answering of all the rest, if they will but be intreated to answer me this one question. It seems that it is by no promise of Christ, no word of God, no nor by any revelation of the Spirit, or Miracles, that we must know them to be our Governors. I confess I can know without revelation, that they claim such authority as any Traytor or Usurper may do; but that they have such authority, it is past my reach to conjecture which way it is to be proved without revelation.☞
But I intreat the Reader to remember this, in all our further disputes with them; That they confess that it is not by revelation (by Scripture, Spirit, Miracles, or Tradition, made known) that the Pope and his Council are the supreme Governors of the Universal Church.
And yet we must know this before we can believe in Christ, or believe the Scripture to be true: And we must know it of necessity to salvation.
And another difficulty here seemeth insuperable, viz. Seeing this is not a matter of Revelation, it can be no matter of Divine faith; and if so, how is all other faith resolved into it? ☞and how is the belief of this (which is no belief) called our implicite belief of all the word of God? can no man be saved that cannot unriddle all these contradictions?
Next I further noted:
R. B. That if he lay the sufficiency on the respect to all mens various capacities of receiving Sect. 11.the notice, then they can never know who are Hereticks; but if they lay it on a general publication, then all or almost all men are Hereticks, being unavoidably ignorant of many things so published.
To this he saith, That he Judgeth of no mans conscience.
Ans. But do not they judg of them, that burn them, and depose Princes for not exterminating them?
He saith, It is sufficient, 1. that such as acknowledg themselves they know such points of faith to be propounded by the Roman Church (which I infallibly believe to be the true Church) and that notwithstanding reject them as errors, give me ground to presume them to be Hereticks.
Ans. 1. I perceive that it is not the Pope only that is infallible, but you also are infallible in believing his Church. But alas! how many are deceived and deceivers, that call themselves infallible?
2. But if your belief in the Pope were infallible, must all others be hereticks, and be burnt, that have not attained to your degree of knowledg (or self-conceitedness)?
3. Just now you said the Governours of the Church need no revelation to make them known; and now it is an article of your belief, That the Roman Church is the true Church: so slippery is your foundation!
4. But what meaneth that hard word The true Church? Is it not enough if it were proved a true Church? Either you mean the universal Church, or a particular Church; if the former, why speak you so sneakingly, and did not speak out, that the Roman Church is all, the whole Church that Christ hath on earth? Which assertion we abhor, and despair of any thing like a proof of it. If the latter what is it to us whether Rome be a true Church, any more than whether Ephesus, Thessalonica, or such other be so?
5. But (to leave your parenthesis) what's all this to the most of the Christian world that do not acknowledg themselves that they know such points of faith to be propounded by the Church of Rome? There is not one of five hundred among us that ever read your Councils, nor knoweth one of many things propounded by you to be such. And are all these now absolved from heresie? How long will that be their security, if the burning and exterminating Religion should prevail? And is it my hard fate to become a Heretick more than all the rest of my neighbours, because I have read your Councils when they have not? Then I would counsel all that love not to be burned, to take heed of medling with such Councils. I have oft read how dangerous a thing you judg it for unlicensed men to read Gods word, and of many that have been burned for it, and its consequents, and how you account it the way to Heresie: But I have not oft before read how dangerous it is to read your Decrees, or to know all that the Church of Rome propoundeth; for he that knoweth them all, must have a very ready commandable faith, such as can believe in despight of Sense, Reason, Scripture, and Tradition, to escape the guilt of Heresie. But I pray you (were you not inexorable executioners) when it cometh next to the burning of Dissenters, that you will spare all that confess not that they know what is propounded by your Church, yea though they take not their parish-priest that tells it them, to be infallible, especially if they know him to be a common lyar, or one that holds that lying for mens good, is a venial sin, or none.
W. I. 2. Such as oppose what all visible Churches have most notoriously practised and believed as Divine truths, while they were so universally taught and practised, I may safely presume to be Hereticks.Sect. 12.
R. B. 1. No O…dipus can tell whether (while) here, refer to (believed) or to (oppose). If to the latter, then neither Abassines, Armenians, Greeks, or Protestants, are Hereticks; for they oppose not such points while they were so universally taught and practised (whatever their forefathers did); for they have themselves so many partners, as derogates from the pretended Universality of the Adversaries. But if by all the visible Church, you mean all except themselves; or if the word (while) relate to (believe), then the Church of Rome are characterized by you for certain Hereticks: for I defie impudence it self, in challenging it to deny, that the Universal Church did notoriously believe and practice the administration of the Lords Supper in both kinds (the Cup as well as the Bread) and the celebration of publike worship in a known tongue, and the reading and hearing of the Scripture in a known tongue by the people, and others such like.
But yet I will not take you at your word, nor call you Hereticks meerly on the account: asserted by you; for I know that your rule is false. And if a man had known that the Universal Church had held some opinion of Chronology, or Genealogy, or Cosmography, (as about Cainan, or the age of Sem, or that there were no Artipodes) especially in the dismal Ninth Century; and if he had thought that they took this point for a Divine Revelation, believing the Septuagint or some other mis-translation (which was commonly received before Ieromes time) this man so thinking that the whole Church then erred in so small a point, was no Heretick for so thinking; for I would know of your self, whether the Popes and all their followers be not Hereticks? For the Septuagint was long taken by the Universal Church for the Word of God, and so was the Vulgar Latin long after by your Universal Roman Church; and consequently that those Texts were Gods Word which yet afterward you altered: Many hundred or thousand alterations in the one were made by Sixtus 5, and Clement 8, all which were so many judgments that the Church had erred that before took the other readings for the Word of God (unless you can make one thing Gods word to day, and the contrary to morrow.)
5. But by this rule also we are acquit from Heresie, if it was not notorious to us that the Universal Church believed and practised contrary to us, which sure is notorious to very few at most. And indeed we differ from the Roman Church the more, because we dare not with them differ from the belief and practice of the far greatest part of the Church of Christ in this and in former ages.
R. B. Is not the Bible a publick testimony and record, and being universally received is an universal tradition? and yet abundance of truths in it, are not actually known or believed by most of your own Church.
W. J. It is only a Tradition, that whatever is there delivered is the word of God; but it is no tradition that such a determinate sense and no other is the word of God in every sentence Sect. 13.contained in it, when according to the analogy of faith the words are capable of many senses.
R. B. Worse and worse still! 1. Tradition tells us that this Bible is Gods Word: This Word of God is significant and intelligible, or else it is worse and more defective than the common words of men: This intelligible Bible or Word therefore delivereth to us its own sense: If not, then Councils do not deliver us the sense of Gods Word, or their own: For God could speak as well as they, and their words are no more plain than his. Yet a multitude of plain intelligible Texts are not understood by many of your Church, whom you call not Hereticks; yea your learned Commentators differ and fight about their sense.
2. Therefore when you talk of every sentence, you do but fly and hide your fraud. If your meaning be that no sentences of Scripture are Divine revelations as they are in Gods own words, but as expounded by your Church, all Christian ears should abhor your blasphemy. If you mean only that there are some Texts so difficult as that most Christians cannnot understand them, or that are capable of various senses, we grant it: But what are those to all the rest? Is every man a Heretick that erreth about the sense of any one plain Text of Scripture, or not?
And it is perverse that you say, of divers senses according to the analogy of faith: For a Text may be expounded contrary to the plain words and context, which yet is not expounded contrary to the analogy of faith, if by that word you mean as is usual, contrary to the harmony of Christian necessary Truths, yea or contrary to any other truth whatever, save that Text it self.
And now, Reader, I leave it to thy reason whether this man have given us any regardable notice at all, what is Heresie? or what they mean by it, or have not trifled and said nothing.
But what Heresie is, I will briefly tell you: The word signifying Election, was used in the beginning sometime for any Sect or Party divided from the common body of the Sect. 14.Church: And Christians were called a Heresie by the Iews. By the Christians the name signified any party of men that professing to differ in some necessary thing from the common body of Christians, and the Doctrine of the Apostles; did separate from them as unmeet for their Communion, and gather themselves into divided Societies. So that differing from the Apostolical Doctrine and Churches; and making different Sects or Societies therefore which separated from and opposed the Churches, was called Heresie by the Apostles; and it was the same thing with the grossest sort of Schism. And the commonest sense of the word. Schism, then was lower, signifying either the contentious making of divisions within a Church without separating from it, or else the breaking of one Church into many, without separating from other Churches, or the generality of Christians. And so long after the word Heresie was sometime used for such Schism only (and hence Lucifer Calaritanus, and the Novatians, and many others were called Hereticks). And sometimes used more cautelously in a narrower sense, for those only that denied some essential article of faith or practice. And sometimes in a yet narrower sense, for those only that upon such a denial of some essential point, did gather into a separated Society to maintain their error, and oppugn the truth.
And according to these various senses of the word Horesie, and Heretick, we must conclude that a Heretick may or may not be saved, and is, or is not within the Universal Church; which W. I. doth deceitfully confound.
Of which I have said more in the End, and shewed you by an instance of Philastrius, how mischievous it is to abuse the name of Heresie against every different opinion of true Christians, and so to make Hereticks of all Believers in the world.